You cling desperately to your stupid "I'm thinking of a number" straw man because you know that I'm right. Everything that hasn't been confirmed not to be a threat is a threat. You secure your turf, survey it regularly, and build a wall in the hopes it will be good enough to deal with the threat of the unknown.

You know this, of course. Children could figure this out. You're taking this position because you seek to work against the interest of your neighbour and you don't want the task to become more difficult.

You're selfish, and it's as plain as day for all to see.

Now you're just being stupid.

Dictionary: Adj: Secret: kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged

If you have a secret that you share with just a few and keep the rest of us in the dark, that is a conspiracy, and conspiracies are a threat to peoples freedom.

Is it a number? Is it a plan to seize control over the water supply? I don't know, but you've expended extraordinary effort to keep me from knowing what it is, which means I can't assure myself that I'm secure and further implies to me that if I knew what you were doing I'd be motivated to put a stop to it.

Your secrets keep me from having access to concrete facts, and that is the reason that they represent a threat.

Now, fuck off, coward.

Great illustration.

On my desktop, over the LAN, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 5.3 seconds and was 9% slower than HTTPS.

On my mobile, over WiFi, again, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 6.8 seconds and HTTPS took 10.8 seconds, 33% slower, AND instead of consumed 2 MB of data because caching couldn't be used.

On my mobile, over the cellular network, HTTP took 18 seconds, and HTTPS took 30 seconds, 69% slower, AND consumed 2 MB of data.

So, considering that mobile is huge and growing, THIS IS A DUMB IDEA.

Yeah, set up encrypted WebRTC with multiple peers from a mobile device, and see now negligible it is.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Freedom does not require you to operate in secret. If you feel the need to operate in secret, either you need to fix your culture, or you need to fix yourself.

Preventing misrepresentation is a social positive. Preserving secrecy is a social negative. Compromises have to be made, but protecting your secrets is not a noble goal in and of itself, shouldn't be necessary in a free society, and in fact represents a threat to other peoples freedom.

I know, but.. Sony, North Korea and the FBI. Not exactly a triumvirate of trust.

Instead of "The Interview", a theater in Texas has decided to show "Team America" instead....

Except in Texas they think Team America World Police is a documentary.

I don't know what to believe. On one hand, we have Sony. On the other, North Korea. Finally, the FBI.

Shit, they're probably all lying their asses off.

Interesting that you mention Pepsi. Speaking of stuck in the 1990s, did you mean to allude to former Apple CEO John Sculley?

Yes, I've noticed that what Google is embracing with Android is the walled garden model. One little thing their search engine does, and a big reason why I'm trying to move away from them, is this redirection. Click on a link on their search results, and it doesn't send you straght to the linked material, no, it sends you to a Google URL that does a little something, then sends you on to the link. It's slow. I thought I could get away from that at DuckDuckGo, but they've been doing the same thing.

What about Google's language, Go? Anyone using that? I've been looking at webRTC, from Google, wondering if it could be used to move away from the client server model of web and Internet usage. For instance Skype (now owned by MS), requires that users connect to a central server, which does provide a little bit of service, tracking who is avaialble and who is away. But at what price?

As to being stuck in the past, I still don't trust Microsoft. Remember OOXML? That wasn't the 90s, that was 2008 when they ran their ugly campaign to cozen and bully ISO into making it a standard. Then there was the little technical problem from 2012 in which Windows 7 didn't offer users a chocie of browsers as they had promised, and for which Europe penalized MS. Now one of MS's latest stunts is this huge change in how they sell Office. You can't buy it any more, you can only lease it? If you think file format lock was bad, how about cloud dependency? Be a real shame if you let your Office 365 subscription expire, and lost access to all those documents you foolishly stored in MS's cloud. Of if you became dependent upon their services to sync and share your documents. Not to mention the little detail that sensitive info may be in their cloudy hands, ripe for data mining, seizing by law enforcement, or leaking in industrial espionage incidents.

It also increases interest in the movie. If it hadn't been for this threat, I doubt many of us would even be aware of "The Interview".

The Aurora shooting lawsuits are still working their way through the courts.

Those cars didn't receive specific threats. The theaters did.

Groups of people have the same speech rights as individuals.

For-profit corporations are not groups of people, they are aggregated capital.

The nature of the group (corporation, labor union, activist group, etc) does not matter.

See above.

Media corporations (i.e. traditional news) have no special rights with respect to speech, all corporations have the same speech rights.

They don't deserve ANY rights at all. They are just aggregated capital allowed to exist for the purpose of deferring liability. Why should money have rights?

If somebody damages your car, would you want your insurance company to pay to fix it?

That means they can set prices based on risk. And risk in this case means "perceived risk". It's not brave or not brave. It's just corporate behavior. This is why corporations are not considered people except by reactionaries and the far Right.